--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/06 5:39:15 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> A clever  poll with not too subtle spin. Nobody approves of the NSA 
> tapping 
> >  domestic calls. The calls in question are calls from suspected 
> terrorists  
> > coming into the US from foreign countries. But the poll doesn't  
> state that. It 
> > just asks if people would approve of impeachment  if Bush 
approved 
> of wire taps 
> > without a warrant, which could be a  call between any two 
American 
> citizens 
> > within the country and  that is not what the NSA is doing. It has 
> been known 
> > and common  knowledge since the story broke that the calls being 
> tapped are 
> >  calls entering the US and from known terrorist suspects.
> 
> The point is  that if there's no judicial oversight,
> they can wiretap anyone they want.  What this poll
> says is that the American people don't trust Bush
> to  limit the wiretapping to suspected terrorists 
> calling into the U.S. from  abroad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this poll says is the democrats are trying to politicize the 
> issue and scare Americans into thinking that Bush is listening in 
> on their private conversations. But as the debate went on through 
> the spring, it didn't work.  People realized Bush has much more 
> important things to do than listen in on  their personal 
> conversations and would much rather have him be able to implement  
> the program and not be tied up with silly bureaucratic red tape 
> when the NSA has  to be able to move quickly on incoming phone 
> calls that are a matter of national  security.

"Silly red tape" is one of the lies the Republicans
have been pushing during the "debate."  Nobody is
tied up in "silly red tape" by the FISA requirements.
The NSA is not inhibited from acting quickly on
incoming phone calls that are a matter of national
security.

So that argument is a total crock.

The point, once again, is that without judicial
oversight, the NSA is not required to have a well-
founded suspicion to listen in on a phone call.
Why should the administration be afraid of that
requirement?  The very fact that Bush doesn't want
to have to get warrants arouses suspicion that the
NSA will not be selective about who they listen to.

A majority of the American people DO NOT TRUST the
Bush administration to operate freely without
judicial oversight.

And as somebody pointed out awhile back, for
those who *do* trust Bush, there is one absolutely
ironclad rebuttal to their argument that the
administration should be able to wiretap anyone it
pleases without a warrant:

President Hillary Rodham Clinton.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to